I order all wines from Germany and don’t pay any taxes because there is no legislation. Alko’s monopoly must be dismantled, and alcoholic products must be brought under competition. This is an undeniable advantage for Finns.
Of course, buying wine is still voluntary, and one can continue to shop at Alko, provided it operates competitively and doesn’t go bankrupt. Surely, in Lapland, many would gladly shop at the State store miles away rather than at the local supermarket?
Could you elaborate a bit on what benefits opening up the monopoly would bring and by what mechanism? The reports from the World Health Organization and several others, in fact, show the opposite. Wouldn’t an even greater benefit be to prohibit ordering alcohol from abroad (just as it is prohibited domestically)? Taxation on these already changed last year (source 1)
1 Alkoholin tilaaminen ulkomailta - vero.fi
Considering the benefit of Finns, it would be best not to shop at all. However, if one must shop, it is only a good thing (from the perspective of the national economy and public health) that some effort is required to acquire alcohol.
Well, isn’t it an effort to order drinks from abroad with a delivery time of one or two weeks? It’s also an effort to have to shop at Alko tens of kilometers away in some remote area. Both examples share the fact that when acquiring alcohol is more challenging, more is bought at once.
Even when I have ordered drinks from abroad, a single order has often been around 1000 euros. If I could get the same products from Alko or a local store effortlessly at a reasonable price, I certainly wouldn’t keep a large selection of drinks, a wine cabinet, etc., at home.
Thank you for the comprehensive answer. There were studies and opinions from many perspectives. In these, everyone was right from their own point of view.
I was just wondering if availability needs to be increased? In my opinion, no.
I also use Alko and have previously been a risk consumer, and I don’t know, for example, how difficult and necessary it is to get alcohol in remote areas.
These are then everyone’s personal opinions on the matter and how one sees it from their own perspective.
I just watched a 3-part documentary on YLE Areena yesterday about prohibition, its goals and effects. Strong recommendation for the said documentary. Prohibition is indeed a good example of how, with naive blinkers on, people believe all good things can be achieved, but in reality, something entirely different is achieved. So, we went from a situation where there were actually no problems to a situation where there are massive problems…
Despite the world opening up and awareness increasing, the Finnish genetic heritage still contains so many risk factors for alcohol use that it is only good if alcohol is not made too readily available to the general public. This still prevents an estimated hundreds of alcohol-related deaths annually.
This, of course, applies to other intoxicants as well, as those prone to addiction rarely become addicted to just one thing, but rather to (almost) everything that increases adrenaline production and is pleasurable, be it cannabis, gambling, sex, sweets, ultrarunning, weightlifting, politics, or investing.
A few percent of alcohol users consume the majority and thus get the worst health problems. Why should the majority of Finns be punished because of a small minority? If alcohol sales were liberalized in terms of distribution and pricing, these problem cases would drink themselves to death in a couple of three years, and then mortality would stabilize.
Should we also make investing and exercising more difficult so that people don’t get hooked on them?
Why do we always have to define things through their problem users? And if Niko, an unemployed 28-year-old, buys beer from the store every day, will the problems really ease if he can only buy his beer after nine in the morning?
A significant portion of alcohol overuse could otherwise be treated by restricting financing instead of restricting availability. Why do we have to finance alcohol consumption, for example, in the form of social benefits? Why isn’t financial support replaced by food vouchers that are only accepted as payment in stores for food products and consumer goods with a 14% tax rate?
If our example Niko’s use of social benefits were restricted and support always involved reciprocity, it would have a much greater positive impact on life management than some beer sales hours or keeping wines in Alko.
Then, one more comment on alcohol availability: it is not a subject of debate whether we should have the possibility, for example, to order alcohol delivered to our homes. For foreign sellers, the decision was made when joining the EU. That possibility exists, no matter how much it might annoy some. And even if the parliament decided otherwise, that possibility would not disappear. The problem, of course, is that Finland has for decades tried to restrict this undisputed right of consumers by illegal means. A couple of years ago, for example, we had intensified supervision of alcohol orders, as a result of which the tax authority arbitrarily slapped Finnish consumers with invoices including tax increases, and then soon revoked those illegal tax decisions. Similar illegal harassment of consumers and entrepreneurs has been practiced for decades, and even though the procedures are always eventually deemed incorrect (=a polite expression), no one is held accountable for anything. From a rule of law perspective, truly peculiar conduct.
It is also worth wondering how we can have so many decision-makers who hate Finnish entrepreneurship that they do not want to grant Finnish consumers the same opportunities, for example, to a K-retailer, as a German liquor dealer has.
It’s truly strange how people just want more nannying for adult people. Should only healthy products be left in grocery stores and others moved to a state-owned store? To prevent some people from getting fat?
There would be a huge outcry about such a thing, that you could only buy groceries with benefits. One would have to work for smokes or beer.
Don’t rage😁 It’s not about “hatred towards entrepreneurs” but about this Raportti: Alkoholihaitoista vähintään 1,4 miljardin euron hintalappu yhteiskunnalle viime vuonna | Uutissuomalainen | Keskisuomalainen
Meaning, about the 1.4 billion impact on the economy.
The unemployed are not the only risk consumers.
To put it bluntly, one could also ask why abstainers have to pay for us alcohol consumers to be able to buy alcohol from wherever, whenever, and at whatever price we want?
No, I am not in favor of prohibition, nor do I oppose ordering alcohol from abroad, because it is allowed and I cannot influence the matter. It’s about balance from an economic perspective.
However, I buy from Finland. For me, it’s just an extra leisure product, and I’m happy to pay tax on it to Finland.
Alcohol tax revenue in 2023 was approximately 1,463 million euros. And if the price tag was 1,400 million, then we are in the black.
We have many points of comparison from which to view statistics. I visited Germany about 7-8 years ago, and Jägermeister was sold at a children’s ice hockey game there. Not a single intoxicated reveler was seen, even though I grabbed a couple of orders myself.
In similar countries where alcohol is available everywhere, are the statistics somehow worse than in Finland regarding misuse and other problems?
At the same time, we could consider whether problems have exploded in countries where cannabis use is permitted?
My gut feeling tells me that things are quite well in these countries. What do we gain by prohibiting the latter substance in particular? Allowing its use is something that should have been done ages ago.
I can’t ultimately say whether it’s better for a certain intoxicant or one of a certain strength to be sold only in a designated establishment, or if it would be better to just bring them to grocery stores and elsewhere.
Restricting sales, for example, to end at 9 PM, is just harassment. How many times have I probably left a few cans unbought on a shopping trip just because the refrigerators are already closed. There’s no sense in that. If it were a sudden urge to go drinking, then one would have to get a container of Sandels from a friend’s online order.
There’s always such a terrible fear that if strong beer is allowed in stores, what will happen to us. What if wine or even Koskenkorva were available there. Oh, the horror. Restrictions mainly prevent spontaneous sauna beers, but if a person wants to go out for weekend festivities, then they’ll just get them from elsewhere and wonder how stupid the system is. Alcoholics definitely know sellers of illicit bottles if the need arises when the refrigerators at an open ABC have been closed.
And it’s quite difficult to understand how consuming alcohol is healthier if you buy it from Alko.
And they certainly haven’t tried to stop me from buying alcohol or otherwise educated me about its use, even though perhaps they should have 
.
It’s probably a hell of a nice workplace though, and the CEO probably has a lot of pressure to succeed too 
.
That single purchase/order quantity from abroad is probably a greater risk for consumption than if you could get it from a local store.
What do they pay for? The price tag caused by problem users is a separate matter. Through taxes, we pay a hell of a lot for the costs of excessive alcohol consumption, obesity, insufficient exercise, etc. Should we, in addition to moderate alcohol consumption, also feel guilty about moderate eating, or about taking the bus instead of walking sometimes, etc.?
I too would gladly buy products from Finland. For example, a double price for beer compared to German prices wouldn’t be a problem, because I don’t order beer by the euro-pallet, and shipping costs from Germany for such products bought in small quantities are already significant, storage causes hassle, etc. Unfortunately, the price difference is much greater than double, and it’s just stupid to pay an absolutely insane amount too much.
For spirits, the challenges are both price level and availability. And I’m not even talking about any exceptionally expensive special products in the latter case. For example, some Don Papa rums costing a few tens of euros are popular basic products in almost all European online liquor stores. But you won’t even find such a brand at Alko. Not to mention anything a little more exotic.
And even if we’re talking about basic products by Finnish standards… I myself have dozens of bottles of Finlandia vodka stashed away. Liter bottles arrived from Spain, including shipping, for 12 euros / bottle. Vodka certainly doesn’t flow at a very fast pace in this household, but it’s a non-perishable and easily stored product. Why would I get those from Alko for about 40 euros / bottle? My tax percentage isn’t so small that I would deliberately want to play the happy taxpayer who pays more than three times the price to Finland compared to what the same product costs when delivered to my doorstep from abroad.
I emphasize, of course, that there is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to maximize one’s own taxation.
True @Mika12345, I had apparently been blind to that side. Good that you brought it up.
You know yourself that I didn’t mean this. And I don’t blame/condemn anyone. It’s not within my authority.
Healthcare is paid for by taxes, and teetotalers also pay them.
If we REALLY want to get rid of excessive alcohol consumption, then it’s a mental disorder. That would require more investment in healthcare, which would then cost more money that isn’t available.
I tried to quickly dig up comparisons of consumption with other EU countries. But I didn’t find any studies other than references to WHO studies which mentioned that consumption in Finland is below average and the reason given was precisely strict regulation.
So if I quickly summarize here, if costs are balanced and consumption itself is lower than in the EU, is it worth changing it much?
Of course, there are also socio-political side effects, but those are difficult to quantify.
In Finland’s current economic system, the only way I can help with my meager resources is through taxes. And I also don’t want others to have to pay my taxes. You can bark at me 
Regarding the amount of consumption compared to other countries and the effect of regulation on consumption, there was indeed a good point in that prohibition law document I mentioned.
It was more or less like this: before the Prohibition Act, consumption in Finland was about 1.7L of spirits per capita, compared to, for example, France’s 20L per capita. That consumption also consisted mainly of low-alcohol beverages. Well, this consumption in Finland was seen as a significant problem that they wanted to solve with strict regulation, i.e., a total ban. Well, all hell broke loose, and consumption went completely out of control and shifted to 96% pure alcohol.
I’ll have to look when I have time. That’s why alcohol policy is quite a balancing act.
If taxes are tightened too much, it will be brought from abroad, made oneself, or bought from the streets. In other words, organized crime gets involved.
When I was young, you could still get moonshine (pontikka), and beer and wine were made for personal use and for sale (not by me, of course😇).
When alcohol tax was lowered, street trade, at least in my area, almost completely stopped.
That’s why I think legalizing cannabis should be seriously considered. All that money flows directly to criminals and not into the national economy.
In this discussion, too, I’m just surprised by this black-and-white thinking. I think a lot about this issue through my own life, and I’ve seen a lot of harm caused by intoxicants.
And yet I can’t say what would be the right solution to the problems it creates. The only thing that seems to truly make a difference is mental health.
I would treat the “statistics” from the prohibition era with EXTREME caution. Or rather, I don’t even look at them myself, because it’s quite pointless. I am 100% sure that alcohol consumption was more than 1.7L at that time. How was that determined back then; by exit polls, sewer concentrations, or by predicting from the stars?
I just can’t bring myself to believe that prohibiting alcohol makes the human mind protest and drink many times more than before just out of spite. Could it be, however, that home distillation specifically emerged with prohibition? That is, it didn’t increase much, but was noticed more when it couldn’t be obtained elsewhere.
In my opinion, it’s good to understand the principle in drug policy that, fundamentally, regulations similar to prohibition (= restrictive drug policy) lead to nothing other than the redirection of drug use to different substances than in the initial situation, most often even to more dangerous substances (-> black market → e.g., dangerous research chemicals like alpha-PVP, MDPV, etc., designer stimulants, illegally imported Ksalols, the list goes on).
If you watch VICE documentaries (one example below), the theme “We congratulate drugs for winning the war on drugs” is repeated there. This refers to the fact that drugs have actually won the entire battle against themselves precisely because all kinds of legislative means have been used to try to prevent their spread and increased use, when in reality that equation just doesn’t work, as long as people in the world generally want to use drugs (-> use doesn’t magically just stop “like hitting a wall”!).
Here, of course, we could talk much longer about the gateway theory, and how I believe that those who defend this claim haven’t read enough scientific literature (addictive personality, individuals with addictive tendencies, etc.) on the subject (unfortunately, some of my doctor colleagues, for example, in parliament, are also in this group…), but perhaps I’ll just leave this statement here 
In these discussions about lifestyles, I feel that Finnishness is easily forgotten: in our culture, sausage and potatoes are traditionally eaten. A good diet for lumberjacks and farmers but quite poor for a modern person working in an office. The same with drinking: here, we get blackout drunk on hard liquor a couple of times a week. How many would enjoy more alcohol in their lives if every time at an afterparty someone asked “who still has drinks?” the answer was “What does it matter, let’s get some Jägermeister from the gas station?” The point is that Finnish culture, as a very traditional agricultural culture, is less suited than average to the modern world. Therefore, in light of current knowledge, it should be changed, and such a change will never happen without massive tantrums.
